4 ms·

Used to have? You're conflating a lot of very different things here. You may consider plain clothes officers to be "extremely unprofessional", but how does that

by objclxt 13y ago

Used to have? You're conflating a lot of very different things here. You may consider plain clothes officers to be "extremely unprofessional", but how does that infringe upon the rights of Americans? Plain clothes officers date way back to before the war on drugs, as do paid informants and undercover officers. Much of what you're railing against is a fundamental part of law enforcement. If a tool is being misused you probably wouldn't ban it entirely. You are advocating a world in which high level organized crime would have a much, much easier time. I challenge you to find a RICO case that didn't involve paid informants, a wiretap, or an undercover officer. The question we should be asking should be how do we stop these tools from being blatantly mis-used. It is absolutely wrong for the DEA to manipulate evidence so as to hide the use of surveillance from the defense. Does that make warranted surveillance on, say, a criminal syndicate wrong in the first place?

mindcrime 13y ago
You are advocating a world in which high level organized crime would have a much, much easier time. Yes, that's an unfortunate side effect of living in a free and open society which respects the freedom and innate rights of the individual which compose it.
- cmdkeen 13y ago
  Until organised crime infiltrate the government and they start ignoring the law. See the FBI under Hoover. Plus organised crime hardly enables a free and open society. Especially as a free and open society revolves around a viable rule of law.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    Until organised crime infiltrate the government and they start ignoring the law. See the FBI under Hoover. Is this an argument for more government, or less? Plus organised crime hardly enables a free and open society. Especially as a free and open society revolves around a viable rule of law. "Rule of Law" is one thing, and is largely desirable, yes. Capricious and arbitrary regulations that try (vainly) to pre-empt a crime that might not happen, and which infringe individual liberties in the process, are quite another thing.

by objclxt 13y ago

mindcrime 13y ago

You are advocating a world in which high level organized crime would have a much, much easier time. Yes, that's an unfortunate side effect of living in a free and open society which respects the freedom and innate rights of the individual which compose it.

cmdkeen 13y ago
Until organised crime infiltrate the government and they start ignoring the law. See the FBI under Hoover. Plus organised crime hardly enables a free and open society. Especially as a free and open society revolves around a viable rule of law.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Until organised crime infiltrate the government and they start ignoring the law. See the FBI under Hoover. Is this an argument for more government, or less? Plus organised crime hardly enables a free and open society. Especially as a free and open society revolves around a viable rule of law. "Rule of Law" is one thing, and is largely desirable, yes. Capricious and arbitrary regulations that try (vainly) to pre-empt a crime that might not happen, and which infringe individual liberties in the process, are quite another thing.